The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing a case with the potential to strike fear in the hearts of sperm donors who thought they were getting $50 for their genetic material and nothing more -- certainly no responsibility for babies created with it.

The justices heard arguments this week in a case that forces them to weigh the right of children to financial aid from two parents against the right of men to provide sperm for in-vitro fertilization without the donors being held responsible for any offspring.

"There is a lot of fear surrounding this court case because if the court extends this beyond support, to rights and obligations, then I think it will create a serious chilling effect," said Lawrence Kalikow, a Bucks County lawyer who is an expert in surrogacy, sperm and egg donation cases.

The genesis of the case is a decade-old deal between ex-lovers, Joel L. McKiernan, now of Mt. Lebanon, and Ivonne V. Ferguson, now of New York. He agreed to provide sperm for babies she wanted and she agreed to absolve him of responsibility for their progeny.

Through in-vitro fertilization, she bore twins and raised them alone for five years. Then she sued McKiernan for child support in Dauphin County.

a) Since she asked him to donate and he agreed, then he should be obligated to pay child support. The fact that she told him he wouldn't have to is irrelevant. He helped make a baby, he should help shoulder the responsibility.

b) Guys who deposit sperm in banks should not have to pay support. The sperm bank should have to pay child support, if anyone does. The difference is that sperm banks are usually used by couples who are having difficulties. They don't need a third person in the picture. If the bank is used by a single woman, then she entered into the deal knowing the situation.

When your asked to donate something that doesn't usually have any strings attached

What about if your girlfriend hands you a faulty condom and says, "Use this"? Wouldn't you share responsibility? Unlike at a sperm bank, this guy knew exactly where his sperm was going. He had control over it. I just hope the woman gave him a hand in making the deposit.

Interesting case.
The fact that she told him he wouldn't have to is irrelevant. He helped make a baby, he should help shoulder the responsibility

That's why this world is turning to shit. People just can't be trusted to keep their word. The courts are always there to help out down the road.

In this case the woman assured the man that he wouldn't have to pay child support. That is an orally binding contract. However, the difference in this case being, there are laws in place to protect the well-being of the child. Based on that technicality, the child (not the woman) will win the case. Now it's to the man to sue the woman for breach of agreement.

"I'm sorry to say there's a good chance he's not your boy," he recalled the physician telling him. In disbelief, he had DNA work done on all his kids. The staggering conclusion: His three sons were not his three sons, at least not biologically speaking.
http://www.mesacanada.com/patern01.htm

Sperm donor must pay child support
A state appeals court ruled that a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor was invalid, and ordered the man to pay child support for the woman's twins. Despite an agreement that appeared to be a binding contract, the father is obligated to provide financial support, the court decided. "It is the interest of the children we hold most dear,"' wrote Senior Judge Patrick Tamalia.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/23/sperm.donor.ap/index.html

In California, minor boys raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped them. "State law entitles the child to support from both parents, even though the boy is considered the victim of statutory rape," the district attorney's office says.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville2.html

12 yr old boy raped, pays child support
The Kansas Supreme Court found that S. Seyer must pay C. Hermesmann child support for the child she bore after statutorily raping him when he was 12 years old. She was his babysitter.
http://www.menweb.org/throop/rawdeal/12boy.html

Interesting case.
The fact that she told him he wouldn't have to is irrelevant. He helped make a baby, he should help shoulder the responsibility

That's why this world is turning to *beep*. People just can't be trusted to keep their word. The courts are always there to help out down the road.

In this case the woman assured the man that he wouldn't have to pay child support. That is an orally binding contract. However, the difference in this case being, there are laws in place to protect the well-being of the child. Based on that technicality, the child (not the woman) will win the case. Now it's to the man to sue the woman for breach of agreement.

Interesting case. I can see some court saying that the contract was between the mother and the father, not the child and the father, and that the child could not agree, at the tender age of a non-fertilized egg, to sign away future rights. I think this could be more complicated that it appears at first. Most cases are, but most of the time this does not keep armchair lawyers from thinking they know better.

Yeah, I just looked at the article, and that is precisely the point:

Quote:

But he decided the contract was invalid because the two had wrongly bargained away rights of the twins, particularly their right to child support from two parents.

As someone who has always viewed things from the left, I know what I am about to say is going to sound extremely conservative...but personally I think private contracts such as this:

Quote:

He agreed to provide sperm for babies she wanted and she agreed to absolve him of responsibility for their progeny.

Should be illegal. Not illegal in the sense of being a criminal act, but illegal in the sense of having no contractual validity, or illegal in the sense of being impossible to enter into such a contract. In a similar sense, as far as I know it is also illegal to contractually sell an organ in the US or Canada, even if both parties agree to it.

I know, I know, I know...it sounds grossly conservative and repressive to restrict people's rights to do what they want, reproductively. But I think problems like this occur because people believe they can legally enter into contracts like this, and believe that their contractual rights will always superscede (sp?) the needs of the resulting offspring.

Even in the situation where, in a given state or province, it is contractually possible to enter into an agreement where a man agrees to provide sperm in exchange for being absolved of all responsibility to provide for the child, there is always the possibility 10 years down the road that the case law or the legislation will change. I sometimes have serious doubts as to whether even sperm banks should be legal...but that's a personal opinion, and another issue.

What about if your girlfriend hands you a faulty condom and says, "Use this"? Wouldn't you share responsibility? Unlike at a sperm bank, this guy knew exactly where his sperm was going. He had control over it. I just hope the woman gave him a hand in making the deposit.

No, I wouldn't. If a woman deliberately hands a man a faulty condom in order to get pregnant and does not tell the man beforehand, the pregnancy is by definition 100% her responsibility. It would not have happened without her actions. It's exactly like a man lying to a woman that he's had a vasectomy, and then impregnating her, forcing her to be a parent without her consent. The fact that some people think they can do this and get away with it -- force someone into being a parent -- is argument enough that if they do so, they should shoulder 100% of the responsibility of raising the child.

The child's needs do not and should not, axiomatically, make the non-consenting parent's rights 100% irrelevant.

you should seriously also advocate needing a license to procreate. (not a bad idea actually)

That's know in some circles as a marriage license.

I've been to a few weddings in myh life, at least ojne of which was my own. Offspring are seldom mentioned during the ceremony at all ...

Very intriguing point, though. Even to drive a motorcycle down trhe street you not only need to get a license, but more to the point, you haved to take a test to prove you know a little of what you need to in order to do it well.

Imagine if there was a written test for parenthood ... how many would fail it?